Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Jack Smith Files New Indictment In Trump January 6 Case; CNN Lands Exclusive First Joint Interview With Harris And Walz; Georgia Democrats Fight Back Over Election Rules Changes; Laura Coates Interviews Cornel West. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 27, 2024 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOUG HEYE, FORMER RNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It's good for the Instagram.

LAUREN LEADER, CEO, ALL IN TOGETHER: We're ending it?

HEYE: Not very tasty.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right, guys --

LEADER: Is that really where we're ending the show?

PHILLIP: I think this is where the unity --

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDNET TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I think the show is over.

(LAUGHTER)

I think you're dead.

PHILLIP: This is where the unity --

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, AUTHOR: Well, yeah, let's go to Twitter and figure out what everybody is thinking.

(LAUGHTER)

PHILLIP: All right, everyone, thank you very much. And just as a reminder, Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Tim Walz, they'll be speaking in their first exclusive joint interview on Thursday night at 9 p.m. right here on CNN with our colleague, Dana Bash. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight: State of the Race." "Laura Coates Liv" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, Jack Smith looks to pierce Donald Trump's immunity shield. I'll take you inside his brand-new indictment tonight. Plus, Harris and Walz picked CNN for their very first interview. Will it quiet the critics or fuel them? And with R.F.K. Jr. exiting the race, could another third-party candidate be given cause for concern? All that tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, a wise woman once said, when you get tired, learn to rest, but don't you quit. Looks like for the last, what, eight weeks, Jack Smith has been, um, resting, certainly not quitting. If anyone thought he would give up on his January 6th case, well, they got another thing coming. He has been trying to figure out how to move forward in his federal election case against a former president, the one accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

Now, the Supreme Court's immunity ruling, it dealt him quite a blow when it ruled that Trump had broad immunity for what are known as official acts. They didn't define what that meant, of course. But for him to proceed, he'd have to make his case basically immunity-proof.

Well, tonight, Smith finally built what that might look like. A slimmed-down case, if you will. And when he handed it over to a new grand jury, they reached the same conclusion as before.

Now, I want to stress that point to you. This was a second set of Americans called for grand jury duty who heard the DOJ out and returned the same four counts: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding as well, and conspiracy against rights.

Now, none of those counts were changed. Not one. What did change, importantly, are the allegations that Smith makes in trying to prove those counts. (INAUDIBLE) mean a before and an after.

Here's what that would look like. Here's what he took out. He took out allegations about Trump's use of the DOJ to further the scheme. This means no mention of the time that his own DOJ told him there was no fraud. They also took out an entire co-conspirator, former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark. And there's no longer a mention of many of the discussions between Trump and White House counsel and White House staff.

Now, Smith kept a lot of things in there. He tweaked some other things as well. He kept the allegations of conversations that Trump had with state officials and stressed that those were not in his official capacity. He emphasized Mike Pence's role as president of the Senate instead of his role as vice president. And he labels the co- conspirators as private attorneys and stresses they were not government officials. Thirty-six pages now instead of 45, but with the same core claim that Trump tried to overthrow the election.

Now, Trump is furious with a capital "F." He called it -- quote -- "an act of desperation, a ridiculous indictment, an attempt to interfere with the election." He also said that his attorneys told him, you're not even allowed to bring cases literally right before an election.

Well, first, the four accounts are literally the same. And even if they weren't, the unwritten figurative rule at DOJ is that no new prosecutions should be brought approximately 60 days before the election. That would be about 10 days from now. So, in other words, Jack Smith literally had time today.

Now I want to go and bring in Hugo Lowell, a special political correspondent for "The Guardian," Marcus Childress, former January 6th committee investigative counsel, Jim Trusty, a former Trump attorney, and Jeff Swartz, a former judge with the Miami Dade Court. Good to have all of you here.

I begin with you here, Marcus, on this. I mean, it has shrunk down and slimmed up as an indictment. They talked about his official capacity now as the candidate Trump instead. Did this go far enough, you think, to align with the Supreme Court is saying about, look, you can't prosecute him for an official act or conduct?

MARCUS CHILDRESS, FORMER JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIVE COUNSEL: Well, it's hard to know if this actually gets to where the Supreme Court thinks these types of facts should go.

[23:05:00]

But I do like the reframing of candidate Trump versus President Trump or office holder versus office seeker.

COATES: Why?

CHILDRESS: Because, I mean, the Supreme Court seemed like it wanted to stop prosecutors from frustrating the role of the president or the duties of the president. And so, by being an office holder, quoting actually the D.C. Circuit, another January 6th case, the president should be agnostic to who is going to occupy the office next, right?

So, it arguably, and I think a very strong argument, shouldn't matter that the president or that the candidate is out advocating for a certain position, right? That's not an official role of the president.

I think that's what Jack Smith is really trying to get to here, is that this is candidate Trump, these are candidate actions. It's the president of the Senate, it's not Vice President Pence, and that's important because the president of the Senate is actually an Article I title. So, that's Congress, it's not the executive branch in Article II. So, you see these differentiations in there.

Another key differential that I think gets around in those Supreme Court cases, the Fischer case. And if you see in this indictment, in the Fischer case, it was about an obstruction of official proceeding. You see mention of, you know, the actual certificates being carried out of Congress at 2:20 p.m., right?

So, you see Jack Smith really not just taking the immunity case into consideration but also the Fischer case, which was a less, I think, publicized case but also just as important for how this case proceeds.

COATES: You know, they're going to have to think about all these things, aren't they? I mean, they can't just look at it, because this is going to probably go back up the courts again. You can imagine, just from Trump's reaction alone, that they're going to want to escalate this yet again. In the alleged scheme, a way into finding electoral or election fraud, they're out. Jeff Clark is no longer a co-conspirator in this indictment right now. But pressuring state officials, that still is in there, and the fake electors as well. When you look at that, what do you think is the reason for why?

HUGO LOWELL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE GUARDIAN: Well, the way the Supreme Court ruling on the immunity came down was it had three buckets, right? And the things we're looking at here are kind of core executive functions, which are official acts and absolutely protected and special counsel cannot bring.

Then in the middle, there are these kinds of presumptively official acts that kind of fall within the outer perimeter of the office of the presidency, which both sides are going to dispute. And, you know, we have reporting tonight about how Trump's lawyers basically see the way the superseding indictment was written as -- in terms of the changes being too minimal, that they're going to litigate this, this is going to be this big fight, they will basically try and pare down the indictment far, far more than it currently is, and then at the third category, the unofficial actions.

And I think the way that the special counsel wrote or kind of brought the superseding indictment back was clever because kind of to your point about how you are kind of phrasing it in the way that would be most amenable to an appellate court or the Supreme Court is to say, look, Trump was acting in his capacity as a candidate and not the president.

And by referencing state officials, you're saying, look, you know, we're not touching the presidency, we're not touching the White House, we're not touching the executive branch, we're talking about state and local officials, we're talking about external lawyers. It had nothing to do with the government, nothing to do with the White House.

And if you frame it in that way, and I think that's partially the reason why it went back to a grand jury because under the law, you've got to send it back to a grand jury if there's new additions or new information in there, by doing it and framing it in this way, they're kind of treading this path of keeping all of the counts but trying to satisfy the Supreme Court's ruling.

COATES: You know, it's an important point for the audience, just to roll on the same page here. Superseding is essentially the equivalent of saying, don't like that, how you like these apples, right? These are the new apples they got to bring in, and only a grand jury can actually prosecute a felony or they can actually return an indictment. You cannot have a prosecutor on their own just say you're charged with a felony offense.

Jim, let me bring you in here. The prosecutors, they kept charges that Trump tried to enlist Pence in the scheme to undermine the election, but they talk about him as the president of the Senate. And in it, they say the defendant sought to enlist the vice president to assist in the plan to use his role as president of the Senate. As Costanza (ph) would say, yada, yada, yada. For the rest, the whole premise being it's not as my second in command, it's because his role as the president of the Senate is separate than our official correspondence.

When you look at this sort of the new way of addressing this, do you have concerns about whether this is viable at this point?

JIM TRUSTY, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: Yeah, well, look, here's the rub, Laura. There's a very practical aspect to the Supreme Court's ruling on immunity because it's not a surprise that they say, hey, if it's immunized information, then it's inadmissible trial. That's kind of one follows the other. But what the opinion also said was that if you presented immunized information to the grand jury, that's a contamination problem. You cannot go forward with that indictment because of the contamination of them hearing this inadmissible information.

That is a landmine that still is not gotten rid of by this indictment. It's very -- look, there's some clever verbiage. There's definitely some defensiveness to it in terms of reacting to both the Trump case and the Fischer case.

But at the end of the day, if the court has a hearing on what's admissible or not, what she's going to do, and the contours of it we have no idea yet, but there's going to be this hearing, if she disagrees with Jack Smith on a single point in the superseding indictment, he's back to having a contamination problem and back to having the supersede again.

[23:10:12]

Now the good news for him is, you know, the old saying, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. When it's Trump, they'll indict it for a piece of bread. They don't even need the ham. But the bottom line is he is still walking a thin line. He could have waited until the hearing and promised the superseder in reaction to the judge's rulings, but he's being aggressive, at the same time as being defensive, and he may pay the cost eventually after that hearing.

COATES: Well, you know, you make the point about contamination. It's possible, right? That the grand jurors could have had and heard evidence along the same logic as the indictment presents, as a candidate, as somebody, the president of the Senate, taking away and essentially compartmentalizing the previous data that could have been used.

And whether it's a piece of bread or a piece of ham, who knows? The grand jury, it's their prerogative. But Judge, let me ask you in this moment because many people are wondering, why didn't he just present this to Judge Chutkan to suggest a mini trial, to describe and define the contours of what an official act would be, how to give it to a jury? Would that have been a prudent course you as a judge would have welcomed or was this something that binds the hands of a judge that it did not even get to her?

JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER JUDGE, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT: I think part of it is that he really did not want to continue with the indictment that he had. He did not want to put Chutkan in a position of having to make decision, what is an official act, what isn't an official act in there, and start parsing out portions of the indictment. That would only lead to more appeals and more rigor. I think that he wanted to present her with as clean an indictment as he possibly could.

I think that there is one thing in the indictment that kind of troubles me with what Jim had to say, and that is that there is a reference to Mark Meadows, not by name, but as his chief of staff, and then tried to make a portion of what he did, not within the bounds of his presidential duties. That is by saying he also acted as a campaign worker, he coordinated things, trying to remove Meadows from the position of being in there. That's the only chink in this indictment that bothers me. Other than that --

COATES: It's a great point.

SWARTZ: -- I think he did a fine job trying to remove as much of his official duties as it could.

COATES: It's a fine point. The premise overall, though, is that at times, individuals went rogue, essentially. They did not follow what they were supposed to be doing, and trying to define that for a jury is where we find ourselves.

But you know, I want to bring us current because I think we can all agree that this is not the end of the litigation game when it comes to this particular indictment. But Donald Trump had a post out tonight, and I'll read it. He says, it is DOJ policy that the Department of Justice should not take any action that will influence an election within 60 days of that election, but they just have taken such action. Voting starts on September 6th. Therefore, the DOJ has violated its own policy election interference, he concludes. All of these comrade Kamala/Biden hoaxes should be immediately dismissed.

Marcus, let me bring you in here because, yes, there is a policy, it's not written in law, it's not something that is written in stone, it's a policy, a guideline of sorts to suggest what you would influence, but this is already the identical charges that have already been brought, nothing has changed to the actual text of them. Is he right that this is somehow a violation of the policy? And if he is, so what?

CHILDRESS: Yeah, he's not right. I don't believe he's right. This indictment was brought a year ago. This is just an update after the Supreme Court made its decision earlier this year. So, I don't believe he's right.

And look, former President Trump is going to make a political point out of any litigation, anything filed by the Department of Justice, anything filed by a state court as part of a bigger political conspiracy against him. It's what he has done. It's what he's doing right now, claiming about the election coming in November, right, is being rigged. He is going to make these points no matter what.

I think that the Department of Justice and Jack Smith are moving along at their own pace, response to the Supreme Court, trying to be proactive to try to remedy the issues that they saw on their own indictment from the Supreme Court's case. And I do want to comment on one thing on what the judge was saying earlier, and its I agree, I do think there is some facts that'll definitely be challenged. But I think we got to also remember this December 9th fact where candidate Trump, back in 2020, filed on his behalf as candidate, not as President Trump, an intervening motion with the Supreme Court with the Texas versus Pennsylvania case. I think a lot of the facts flow from that point on December 9th, when former President Trump filed on his behalf as a candidate.

[23:15:03]

I think the special counsel is trying to show that on December 9th, he filed a motion as a candidate, and a lot of his actions from there flowed as a candidate. So, I think that's the argument you're going to try to see to get in front of what the judge just said, but we'll see if it actually holds water in front of the court and at the appellate level.

COATES: Jim, 20 bucks say you disagree with Marcus. You think that this actually is, in fact, something that's problematic and a violation of policy? I got 20 bucks somewhere.

TRUSTY: I love the way you bet 20 bucks when I'm remote and you know I'm not going to be able to collect it.

COATES: I mean, but that's how you do it, my friend. Okay? That's how you never end up paying.

TRUSTY: I forgot I was dealing with Laura Coates. I'm sorry, Laura.

(LAUGHTER)

No, look, I don't think that's crazy. The bottom line is a superseding indictment is always a little different flavor than an original indictment. And a policy is unenforceable no matter how much you want to talk. And I could talk for six hours about weaponization, about singular treatment of Donald Trump, of differences in this investigation and prosecution than anything I saw in my 27 years as a prosecutor.

But, but it doesn't really matter. The moment, you know, you're not going to get a lot of leverage saying they've broken their own policy. You could argue that, you know, the 60-day policy is -- was written or was kind of created before there was early voting, so it doesn't matter that it has been 70 days. It's not -- you know, that's -- that's a momentary tweet in the wind. It's not going to really matter legally in terms of what happens next.

The only thing I want to go back to really quick, Laura, whether I forfeit my 20 bucks or not, I think this idea that the vice president wears two hats is another instance kind of like Mark Meadows, where Jack Smith is determined to get Meadows and Pence on the witness stand. He was able to get them in grand jury as if there was no such thing as executive privilege. He wants them for this case. And so, he's out on a limb. And again, if the judge disagrees at a hearing, and there's going to be a hearing about what stuff is fair game and what stuff is not, if she disagrees that Pence doesn't really wear two hats when it comes to a president talking to his vice president, that's going to be a problem too, I think.

COATES: Hmm, I think I just made 20 bucks. Thanks, everyone. Nice to talk to all of you.

After weeks of criticism for not doing press, it is happening. Kamala Harris set to face CNN's cameras for her first interview, and Governor Tim Walz will be with the vice president as well. What to expect, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Forty-eight hours from now, we'll hear from Vice President Harris in her first sit-down interview, and it'll be right here on CNN. We'll talk with my colleague, Anchor Dana Bash, and it'll air Thursday night at 9 p.m. Eastern. It's her first interview since she got to the top of the ticket. And her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, will also join her.

Meanwhile, the debate over the debate could possibly be settled tonight. The mics will likely be muted for the ABC debate between Trump and Harris on September 10th. And the Trump team saying it agreed to the rules that are similar to the one that CNN and the debate here had with President Biden at the time, muted mics and no audience. It's unclear if they'll be allowed to bring notes on the stage, but the Harris campaign says the debate negotiations are ongoing.

With me now, Molly Ball, senior political reporter for "The Wall Street Journal," Antjuan Seawright, Democratic strategist, and Ramesh Ponnuru, who is editor of the National Review. Glad to have all of you here.

Okay, first of all, are the rules settled or what? We're still hearing some different things about the mic or not being muted. They say it's done, it's finally happening. But Antoine, a recent poll found that 36% of voters, 36%, say they don't know what Harris stands for. And so, a debate, obviously, a moment to have, that become very clear. But is the goal for the interview, if you're her and her team, is the goal to get that granular detail out there or is it to continue to define oneself personally?

ANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, a couple of things. I think this notion that she is somehow afraid of an interview is intellectually dishonest or a misrepresentation of the facts. As sitting vice president, she has done over 80 interviews this year alone. She became our nominee five weeks, raised $540 million, 22 trips, 14 states. She has been busy. A traveling press pool is with her at all times.

The most important interview she can continue to do is interviewing with the American people because that's who is ultimately going to decide whether or not she gets the biggest political promotion in her life.

So, I think this interview, a couple things have to happen. Number one, is survive in advance. Don't make a mistake. However, she cannot fall into this idea of playing not to lose. She must play to win. So, part of her journey over the next 70-something days is to continue introducing herself to the American people. So, this interview would do just that as well as lean in on some policy things that matter as she has been articulating from her speeches and from her events.

COATES: Seventy-two days away, but 72 hours as well. What is she to do over the next couple of days? What would be the plan, do you think, in preparing for the interview? Because frankly, with this truncated schedule, Ramesh, a lot of weight is already on an already high stakes election.

RAMESH PONNURU, EDITOR, NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE: I do think that there is a bigger upside and a bigger downside to this interview now because we've been waiting for so long because she has only done these scripted events since she ascended to the top of the ticket. And that means that if it goes really well, then a lot of the Republican attacks that have been ramping up during this period will end up falling flat. But, of course, if something doesn't go well, then it ends up getting magnified. The clip keeps getting going viral and getting re-sent around.

COATES: You know, you're already hearing some people questioning why she's not doing it alone.

[23:25:04]

Why is her running mate with her? We're going to likely hear that criticism going forward. But it has been done before where one's running mate is beside you. They are a collective ticket. This is extraordinary times that we are in. But I've been curious to see how the interplay between the two actually goes on various specific issues.

But there was also an interview that happened today from Donald Trump. He was talking to Dr. Phil. And in it, he falsely claimed that the vote was rigged in California. Molly, listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I look at California. I gave a speech. I had a crowd so big. I said, there's no way I could lose California. But automatically, they mark it down if you're a Republican as a loss, that you lose by five million votes. I said, five million votes? I guarantee, if Jesus came down and was the vote counter, I would win California, okay?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I feel like Jesus has other priorities, but I don't want to speak for Jesus at all.

MOLLY BALL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, and I feel like if Jesus was running as a Republican, he still might not win California.

(LAUGHTER)

And that's the thing that Donald Trump doesn't seem to understand, is that, yeah, there's more Trump voters in California than there are in Texas, it's just that big a state, you can draw a ginormous crowd, you can get an arena full of people in every city in California, and it's still not enough votes to win the state. Obviously, Trump did not win California. But, I'm sorry --

COATES: But no, that's a fine point. But also, it immediately strikes me as a double standard at play where she is being criticized for not giving interviews, but then he's giving interviews and there are blatantly false statements that are being made. And so, you have to wonder from the American electorate's perspective, which is more valuable, an interview with the journalist, as great as Dana Bash is and will be in the interview and getting information, or having to talk to a candidate who you have to clarify and fact check throughout?

BALL: Well, it wasn't exactly a tough interview, from what I understand. I must say I didn't watch the whole thing. But look, I mean, I think about this as a journalist. And the politics of it, of course, are all about what's good for the campaign, what's good for the other campaign. But as a journalist, that's not what we're trying to do. We're trying to inform the public. We want them to be able to get to know these candidates. We want to -- you want a tough interview that puts the person through their paces, but isn't a gotcha, right?

So, the goal is to get people to know who these people really are, beyond the talking points, beyond what's in the teleprompter, so that does mean being aggressive, it does mean being tough, and Dana is incredible at this, and I think she'll do a very good job.

But it isn't about just trying to, you know, embarrass them or make them slip up. That's not what this is about. It is about informing the electorate and giving them a sense of behind, you know, all the stagecraft, behind all the staged, you know, speeches and so forth, who are these candidates, really? Because I think there's a lot of curiosity about both of these candidates, right? Unlike Trump, they are not known quantities, and most people don't feel like they really know who they are and what they're about.

PONNURU: And in that respect, I should add, getting Trump to say what he said about California and the Lord and the vote actually does have some value because it allows us to calibrate our sense of just how deranged he is --

(LAUGHTER) -- or how stupid he takes some of his audience to be. But what you were saying about people being curious about Harris, I think, is also one of the things that's changed the dynamic of this race, which is that Trump isn't the person who's the center of attention and curiosity right now. I think that is a lot of what is getting to him. It's not just the polls. It's not just the question of the crowd size. It's the fact that he's not the main character anymore.

SEAWRIGHT: Except no matter what she does in that interview, it's not going to satisfy everyone.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SEAWRIGHT: And I think that is the most important element, and that's why she can't lose focus of the strategy. If the American people were genuinely concerned about her ability to -- quote, unquote -- "not perform for the teleprompter or speak directly to the issues," the Kamala-mentum we are experiencing would not be the way it is: $540 million, $82 million in one week, you had 70,000 Republicans on a Zoom call on her behalf, 200 plus former Republican officials from previous administrations signed a letter in support of her.

I mean, that is something we've never seen before. As I've continued to say, she's a once in a generation candidate, and we're feeling that. And so, when it comes to policy, instead of the personality, I think we should welcome that as Democrats because that's when she's at her best. Prosecutor versus the prosecutor, policymaker versus political performer, that's the argument and that's the bet I'll take any day. My money is on Kamala Harris.

PONNURU: I think a lot of that enthusiasm is people who are against Trump being relieved that it's not Biden anymore.

BALL: Well, I think to your point about curiosity, though, I think the thing that she has achieved is she has opened the door. She has opened -- she has made people curious about her, and they are ready to listen to what she has to say. And now, she has to satisfy that curiosity.

COATES: Well, there's the interview with Dana Bash on Thursday.

[23:30:00]

There's also the debate on the 10th. Both are going to be very important data points for the campaigns and the electorate going forward, and whether the rules about muting or not, it's ultimately going to come down to what is said. Thank you so much, everyone, for being here.

Well, Georgia Democrats, they are crying foul over changes to the state's election rules that they say is going to lead to chaos. Even Georgia's Republican secretary of state is calling out the board that's making the changes. How Democrats are fighting back, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Tim Walz kicking off a bus tour in battleground Georgia tomorrow.

[23:35:02]

It marks the first time the two will campaign in that state together. It also underscores their hopes that the Peach State might be back in play, but not without a fight. Democrats taking aim at the state's controversial Republican-controlled election board over two rules they passed recently.

The DNC and the Georgia Democratic Party filing a lawsuit saying that these rules could -- quote -- "invite chaos" by giving the board license to hunt for election irregularities in order to delay certification of November's presidential results.

So, what do these Democrats want? Well, for the board to stop making last-minute rule changes and for the court to declare the board has to certify this year's election results by November 12th -- quote -- "absent a valid judicial order to the contrary."

Georgia's Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, had this to say about the State Election Board earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, GEORGIA SECRETRAY OF STATE: Well, at the end of the day, it's very clear in black letter law that you have to certify the election by Monday after the election. And so, we fully expect them to do their job.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do you feel like what's happening on the State Election Board is a direct result of the aftermath of the 2020 election and some of the election lies that were brought on?

RAFFENSPERGER: You'd have to ask each of them. All, really, I've said is that the State Election Board is a mess.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Pretty strong words. With me now, Georgia State Senator Nabilah Islam Parkes and David Becker, executive director and founder of Election Innovation and Research. He's also the author, the co- author of "The Big Truth: Upholding Democracy in the Age of the Big Lie." Thank you both for joining me this evening.

Senator, I'll begin with you because you submitted an ethics complaint even before this lawsuit was filed. For those outside of Georgia who haven't been following every single move this board has made, could you tell us what you think is going on here?

STATE SEN. NABILAH ISLAM PARKES (D-GA): Well, I filed this ethics complaint because the Georgia Election Board's duty is to effectuate Georgia elections in a fair and orderly manner, and that's not what's happening right now. The Georgia Election Board, which is majority Trump-aligned, uh, decided to violate the code of ethics and the Open Meetings Act. And so, they're passing illegal rules to give the power to county lection boards to either delay or deny the certification of the of our elections. And so, this is going to produce mass chaos.

In addition to that, we have an election board member who is soliciting a job from a former Trump official. And so, there's quid pro quo going on. To echo the words of the secretary of the state, the board is a hot mess.

COATES: I mean, thinking about the allegations, they're quite serious. And of course, voters, they need to have certainty and they need to have uniformity, and knowing that their votes will be counted in a way that other counties will be as well.

David, I mean, this lawsuit is directly aimed at primarily two rules, right? One that would allow election officials to conduct a reasonable inquiry in before certifying election results, and the other would permit members of county election boards to investigate ballot counts. What would be the effect of these rules if they are fully implemented?

DAVID BECKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND FOUNDER, ELECTION INNOVATION AND RESEARCH: But we have to understand what certification of election results is. It is just, as Secretary Raffensperger alluded to, the non-discretionary ministerial act of giving legal effect to an election. It is not an opportunity for political appointees to decide they don't like the election results and delay or stop the certification or to conduct even any kind of inquiry.

There's another path for that in Georgia and in every other state. There's a path to legally challenge those results. In fact, in Georgia, certification is a precondition to following that path. So, what we could see happening, if the current configuration of the state board in Georgia is successful, it could facilitate an effort to delay or even stop certification, presumably only if the candidate that they don't like wins.

And because a presidential election has a ticking clock that keeps ticking, there are certain dates that cannot be moved. December 11th is the date of ascertainment of electors, which Governor Kemp will have to sign. December 17th is the meeting of electors. January 6th, of course, the joint session of Congress. There could be a really desperate attempt to try to delay or stop those efforts.

As Secretary Raffensperger alluded, though, I think this ultimately, this desperate attempt, will fail even if the state board is successful at this point, but it could give oxygen to false claims that an election was stolen, which could lead to some volatility and potentially violence.

COATES: And, of course, there is this rule, the Purcell rule, that essentially says that you're not supposed to tinker with elections and preserve the status quo.

[23:40:03]

You want to make sure that it's not a last-minute change, again, for that uniformity, that certainty. And, of course, the Supreme Court's recent rulings have left in question to some extent what last-minute means and, of course, what the status quo really would be. I wonder how that will impact it.

Senator, these board members, they were appointed just this year by legislature in Georgia and the Georgia Republican Party. Donald Trump actually shouted them out at a rally in Atlanta a few weeks ago, and by name, mind you. Give us some context into how they were chosen and why they are pushing these rules.

ISLAM PARKES: Well, they're pushing these rules because they're doing the bidding of Donald Trump and his MAGA allies. And they need to be immediately removed because they're passing illegal rules, which is why I filed that ethics complaint.

And I've asked the governor of Georgia to, at the very least, he needs to investigate these claims and these allegations. And we have yet to hear a definitive answer from him from what he will do. But it is very clear in Georgia law that once he, you know, receives an ethics complaint like this, he is supposed to convene a hearing.

COATES: Well, David, on that point, I mean, Governor Brian Kemp's office is apparently consulting with the state A.G. on whether he can remove members of the election board. Do you think Kemp would ultimately have that authority?

BECKER: So, I think that's ultimately going to have to be decided. I can't predict that one way or the other. What I know of Georgia election law, though, is that it clearly states that certifying an election by the deadline set in Georgia statutes is a statutory requirement. It is the duty sworn by members of the state board of elections.

And if they fail to do that or if they pursue a path that would potentially lead to that, there might be grounds under Georgia law for the governor to remove it. It's clear he's trying to follow the law here. He's asking the attorney general for guidance on what his authority is with regard to removal. It's clear that he's not particularly happy with the mess that the state board has become. It's very clear that Secretary Raffensperger, by his own words, is not happy with it.

And it should also be noted, this is a fairly recent development. Up until a few months ago under a previous configuration of the board, Republicans and Democrats were working fairly well together on that state board of elections. This is after recent removals of some Republican members and replacements with other Republican members where they are now appearing at political rallies.

Political appointees who have responsibility over elections is something I've never heard of. That is a real problem. It is clear that the executive branch in Georgia, even though they're led by Republicans, is taking this very seriously.

COATES: Senator Nabilah Islam Parkes, David Becker, thank both of you so much for coming.

ISLAM PARKES: Thank you for having us. COATES: Well, another election battle is playing out in Wisconsin over who is on the ballot. Independent presidential candidate, Cornel West, fending off an attempt to remove him from that ballot. But you might be surprised who wants him off and who wants him on. Cornel West, Dr. Cornel West, be specific, is my guest, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Look, don't call it a comeback, but look who's back on the ballot, RFK Jr. The Wisconsin State Election Commission today rejecting Kennedy's request to withdraw after he suspended his campaign. Their ruling? Once a candidate files nomination papers, they're on the ballot -- quote -- "except in case of death."

Now, another third-party candidate who can stay on the Wisconsin ballot, Cornel West. He's one of three third-party candidates now still in the race. And it's the first time that West has qualified for the ballot in a swing state. It caps a string of recent ballot victories for Dr. West.

But sometimes, elections can create some pretty strange bedfellows. Democrats have backed some of the ballot challenges against West. And it appears that the left- wing West has an ally in his corner, the Republican Party. Reports suggest that GOP operatives are aiding in West's quest to get on the ballot. Why? Well, West could possibly peel away voters from Harris. And in an election that could be decided on the margins, every single vote matter.

But how they're doing it? Perhaps raising some eyebrows in Arizona where West did not qualify. One voter told the Associated Press she didn't know people visiting her home to collect her signatures were Republican-aligned operatives, adding her signature was -- quote -- "forged."

Now, independent presidential candidate Cornel West joins me now, and he certainly has taken issue with the association of those who have done the latter of which we speak. Dr. West, good evening. I'm glad that you are here because I would love for you to address some of the things that are being said. In particular, Dr. West, you're being criticized as somehow a spoiler for Democrats specifically, in part because you have received Republican support to get on the ballot. What is your reaction to the criticism and who do you think your supporters will ultimately vote for if you yourself were not on the ballot?

CORNEL WEST (I), 2024 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Appreciate the question. Always a joy to be in conversation with you. Your brilliance is undeniable, my dear sister. It's always a blessing to talk with you.

COATES: A compliment coming from the likes of you. Thank you so much. WEST: No, I'm just telling you, you know, my campaign is about truth, justice, and love. Truth about everything, justice for everybody, and love across the board. But one, we have to recognize that we have such a corrupt system. It is just driven by big money (INAUDIBLE) both major parties are going to have access to, and then the arbitrary power to just do anything.

[23:50:04]

And all you have to do is look at the plight of my precious (INAUDIBLE) who have been so fairly, fairly mistreated, unjustly treated by arbitrary power of the government, which means what? Which means then that someone like myself, hard-working volunteers at work, breaking their necks, and then being so viciously attacked by, especially a Democratic Party, and then we go to look for lawyers.

It's almost impossible to find a lawyer, to find a libertarian lawyer that has a Republican association but concerned about each person voting. And that's very important. Brother Joseph of the Socialist Equality Party, he had to speak strongly on our behalf, even the differences that he recognized that we have.

We have a system that is so undemocratic that both parties have little interest in democracy. In the end, which is not to say they're identical, but in the end, they'll do anything to win. And some of us trying to hold out for some kind of integrity and honesty.

And, yes, we could be manipulated, but I've been quite explicit. I don't want any Trump, gangsters, spies, operatives, infiltrators. And at the same time, the Democrats trying to crush us, like cockroaches, but we rise. We're still on the move and on a variety of different balance.

COATES: Why is it that you think Democrats, especially head lawyers in particular, are not coming to your aid in order to support your efforts to get on the ballot? Do you think that it is somehow a suggestion that you indeed are a threat to the Democratic ticket?

WEST: Well, any time, the truth is a threat to any set of lies and crimes. When I talk about Democratic Party, Sister Harris being a genocide denier, genocide enabler, not talking about poverty, not talking about mass incarceration, not a word about reparations, not talk about wealth inequality but the opportunity, society, then those words constitute a certain kind of threat, it seems to me.

But, of course, at the same time, we have to be very honest and recognize that the Democratic Party has had so many different forms (INAUDIBLE) that are operative, and it poses itself as a major opposition to the fascism of Trump. It's sad to see, you know, Brother Kennedy has a right to be wrong, but he's siding with fascists. It's immoral.

But if they only respond to fascism when all of this lies in crimes, it's going to be more lies and crimes, then that's not a genuine antifascism. You're just postponing it. You're just putting it off. And if America doesn't have the capacity to provide a genuine response, then what are we talking about? We're headed toward fascism. We've got to be able to tell the truth about it.

COATES: I didn't mean to interrupt you, Dr. West. Do you take --

WEST: No, no, no.

COATES: -- issue or are you concerned at all about the Republicans who may be supporting your efforts to remain on the ballot, given some believe it's because they are intending for you to detract from the Democrat ticket which, obviously, every candidate must earn their right towards that 270?

WEST: That's right.

COATES: But do you take issue with the intimation that you are being used in that fashion?

WEST: Well, I don't think that it's a matter of being used. It's a matter of presenting the strongest case. And I come out of legacy of Martin King, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rabbi (INAUDIBLE), Dorothy Day. I'm trying to keep that legacy alive, context electoral politics, and tell the truth about American imperial policy not just in the Middle East but around the world, about predatory capitalist processes, and legacy the white supremacy still operating that you don't hear too much in the Democratic Party these days.

I think that Black sister is running but you don't get serious talk about Black people's situation, plight and predicament, how that relates to issues of poverty and issues of class and issues of socioeconomic position along with the white supremacy.

Meaning what? Meaning, in fact, that it is very difficult to keep this legacy alive, given the fact that there's not a lot of space in American society and culture for serious talk about painful truths, for serious talk about justice for poor and working people, and serious talk about love.

Brothers, sisters, siblings, the humanity in each and every one of us, that's being pushed to the margins. That's the primary thing that's generating the fascist spirit in this on the one hand and the militarism on the other. When I hear my dear Sister Harris say, America is the greatest story ever told, I think it's all about what church say, I thought it was Jesus also. Now, we got the cross under the flag.

[23:55:00]

Now, we got God out of the nation state. You could be patriotic but not --

COATES: Yeah.

WEST: And I think that the nation's state is over, something grander like truth and love and justice. No, not at all. The greatest privilege --

COATES: Well, I hear your point. I hear your point. WEST: No, the greatest privilege is being loved and giving love, to love and be loved. Let's not get things confused in this frenzy, in this talk about joviality as if it's joy. I'm talking about a deep joy that comes out of grief, that comes out of struggle. That's what the blues is fundamentally about.

COATES: Well, let me sing my blues for a second and ask you this pointedly, Dr. West, and just really quick. Given what you think is lacking from the Harris campaign, should you not continue with your own candidacy? Would you in any respect be open to working with that campaign or endorsing the Harris campaign? Yes or no?

WEST: No, I've never sent my precious Palestinians down the river, and I've never had poor people pushed to the side in order to jump on the bandwagon of the Democratic Party. And, of course, unlike Kennedy, they never even think about the gangster Trump. No, we are trying to be true to our calling and we are proceeding to November 5th.

COATES: Dr. Cornel West, not a yes or no, but thorough nonetheless. Thank you. I hope the voters certainly understand your point.

WEST: It's really a no. I'm going to the end. I'm sorry about that.

COATES: No, I hear you. I hear you. I'm just --

WEST: I'm not giving up.

COATES: I hear you.

WEST: I'm not giving up.

COATES: I understand. Dr. West, thank you so much.

WEST: Okay.

COATES: And thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)